Twitter | Search | |
This is the legacy version of twitter.com. We will be shutting it down on 15 December 2020. Please switch to a supported browser or device. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.
Mark Z. Jacobson
People who support Carbon Capture+Direct Air Capture are condemning millions worldwide to die from pollution, which those techs increase or hold constant. They are also increasing CO2 compared w/spending same money on clean, renewables to replace fossils
Reply Retweet Like More
laura butcher 8 Nov 19
Replying to @mzjacobson @AlterViggo
I don’t think this is necessarily true as long as the energy used for direct air capture is from renewable sources. Also the carbon captured this way could replace fossil fuels as substrate for necessary types of plastic and be permanently sequestered
Reply Retweet Like
Mark Z. Jacobson 8 Nov 19
Replying to @strlyb @AlterViggo
Direct air capture powered by wind always increases air pollution and CO2 relative to using same wind to replace coal or gas. Please read paper.
Reply Retweet Like
Ian 8 Nov 19
Replying to @mzjacobson
Very helpful dialogue, Mark!
Reply Retweet Like
Seaver Wang 8 Nov 19
Replying to @mzjacobson
I read your paper, Mark! Logical conclusions overall. To push back somewhat on the blanket statement though... for emissions-intensive heavy industry w no renewable alternatives, wouldn't carbon capture w clean power reduce soc. harm from co2 even accounting for upstream emits?
Reply Retweet Like
James Crowley 9 Nov 19
Replying to @mzjacobson
Agree we shouldn't be optimising exclusively for carbon reduction, given effective alternatives - but what about for industries or emission sources that can't easily switch to renewables, like industrial heat?
Reply Retweet Like
Geoengineering Info 9 Nov 19
Replying to @mzjacobson
Just no. A) CCS doesn't have to be polluting, eg Allam cycle. B) we need CCS at scale for steel and cement, so we need to get costs down by scaling
Reply Retweet Like
Karun Mukhi 9 Nov 19
Replying to @mzjacobson
I would argue that industries like heavy aviation - commercial jets with >100 passengers, there's no near-term alternative to fossils. Why not have mandatory carbon capture on airport land to offset some of the damage done?
Reply Retweet Like